Vista vs XP.... XP vs Vista...

It's been a year since Vista was released, for some anyway, what are your thoughts on the operating system?

I've read a lot about it being Millenium II and that it's flopping bad, and the only thing keeping it afloat are the computer manufacturers by forcing home users to purchase a Vista only PC.

However I've read a lot of good about the enchanced security of the kernal, BIT locker, and ease of use (minus compatibility problems), and a true non-admin system state.
___

I used the beta Vista, and commercial release for the last year (vista ultimate) and to be honest it sort of plays nice in a domain environment, but there are some small annoying issues as any new OS release would have. I don't understand what all the fuss is about though and think that there are a lot of novice sheep out there on a negative bandwagon.

Just my 2 cents and curious about others opinions...

Find more posts tagged with

Free for TechExams community: Cybersecurity salary guide

Compare cert salaries and plan your next career move

Button

Comments

RTmarc

We're slowly pushing it out to our users. So far very few issues. Most of it has to do with some of the older applications we use in this business not wanting to play nice but more and more are being updated. Before long we will have no compatibility issues. One thing that does piss me off is BGInfo not working like it should. I know why it's screwed up but I don't know how to fix it programatically.

JDMurray

I cut Vista a lot of slack because I remember the driver/hardware compatibility problems that the initial release of Windows XP had. Run Vista on newer hardware with compatible peripherals and with all of the cute features turned off (Aero, User Account Control, Instant Search, Shadow Copy) and it's very stable and usable (IMHO).

I've been meaning to try BlackViper's Windows Vista Service Configurations to see if I can get any significant performance gain from Vista. Is anyone using BV's configs on Vista?

JDMurray

RTmarc wrote:

One thing that does piss me off is BGInfo not working like it should. I know why it's screwed up but I don't know how to fix it programatically.

Are you running the latest BGInfo, version 4.12? What's the problem you are seeing?

dynamik

It seems to work fine on new hardware. I've got a few new machines around here that don't have any problems. However, loading iTunes gives me a BSOD. It supposedly doesn't like the Intel raid setup I have. I have a new core2duo system, so antiquated hardware isn't the problem. It might have been fixed recently, but I haven't had the courage to give it another shot. It actually trashes the array, and it has to be rebuilt. I guess I'm lucky that I'm running raid-1. Apparently raid-0 users get screwed.

RTmarc

JDMurray wrote:

RTmarc wrote:

One thing that does piss me off is BGInfo not working like it should. I know why it's screwed up but I don't know how to fix it programatically.

Are you running the latest BGInfo, version 4.12? What's the problem you are seeing?

Nope and that will fix my problem. I'm using 4.07 or .09 or something like that. Basically it's adding quite a few extra adapter settings into the background. It displays <none> for all of the virtual adapters which makes it go all across the screen. The 4.12 is showing it running correctly on Vista so maybe that's all it needs. Thanks!

JDMurray

dynamik wrote:

However, loading iTunes gives me a BSOD.

I haven't heard of any device problems under Vista with the latest iTunes 7.5. Eariler releases would BSOD with some burners, but I hadn't heard about problems with disk arrays. It's all Vista driver and iTunes incompatibility issues. Now the only remaining problem seems to be iTunes not working (well) with 64-bit Vista.

RTmarc

JDMurray wrote:

dynamik wrote:

However, loading iTunes gives me a BSOD.

I haven't heard of any device problems under Vista with the latest iTunes 7.5. Eariler releases would BSOD with some burners, but I hadn't heard about problems with disk arrays. It's all Vista driver and iTunes incompatibility issues. Now the only remaining problem seems to be iTunes not working (well) with 64-bit Vista.

I can confirm the iTunes and 64bit incompatibility. They aren't playing nicely at all.

dynamik

It's the 32-bit version. If you google any combination of vista, raid, and itunes, you'll get plenty of results. There's threads on Dell, Apple, etc. You start to feel bad for the people who don't know any better and RMA their drives multiple times.

I'll try 7.5 when I'm feeling adventurous. I actually built myself an identical setup at home, with a little less RAM and no RAID, and everything works fine. I just load up my nano before I go to work, so it's not a pressing matter.

Nik00117

I personnally like vista, a lot of poeple don't.

I mean I like the search feature I use that a lot, the side bar I have mine setup so that it displays all the information I need such as the exchange rate for euro and dollar (i deal with that quite a bit), the date, and I also have a to-do list on it so that when I wake up flick of my mouse I get all this information in mere seconds.

I also have quite a few pictures, and generally my pictures are tossed in one big folder, no real organizing since I find that simply confuses me. Well to find it I simply type a portion of the picture name which I normally know and vista narrows it down very quickly.

Or for cmd, or calc its very nice all you got to do to get the calc to pop up is go to your start menu click the search button type in 'calc" hit enter boom its up. Or for CMD just type in CMD enter twice and your there.

Also the new way which they organized the start menu in my eyes is a postive productive thing. It takes getting used to but right now i'm a windows 2000 PC which layout is "simliar" to XP and I have to say that me getting around is much more difficult, although I have been using it for a longer ammount of time.

All vista seems to boot faster as well. Which is a nice function, and I like how a lot of the menus have been updated.

Also I haven't ran across very many programs which "don't" work, COD2 didn't work quite as well as i'd of liked however I was able to fix that fairly quickly. Even my older programs which I use work perfectlly fine.

I'm also running 64 bit, which is what I believe to be a bit more stable. Also I like the step towards a more GUI influenced intital setup which is a very nice feature.

Schluep

I have a 4 month old laptop running 64 bit Vista and I really like it. I actually have had complaints from people with the same hardware that tried to go back to XP due to some more driver issues. If you try to load Vista on old hardware you will likely run into some major issues, but it works great on new systems designed for Vista (and the performance on the Core 2 Duo T7300 works great with the 64 bit OS).

I was able to get all of the software that I use on a regular basis working except my IPFax program (because of how it coodinated with the printer set-up for XP). Oftentimes you will install something and it will not work but then you simply have to run that program as Administrator and it will typically fix the problem. If not you have compatibility mode options that usually take care of it. Just make sure to use an x86 installation for any 32 bit applications. There is no Adobe Flash Player designed to work with the 64 bit version of IE yet, but you can use the 32 bit IE with it and have no problems.

iowatech wrote:

I don't understand what all the fuss is about though and think that there are a lot of novice sheep out there on a negative bandwagon.

.

A lot of companies did not test Vista to any degree before deciding to upgrade all of their systems to Vista. I can think of several local ones that did this and regretted it greatly. There are definitely some compatibility issues with some of the software that is out there, especially a lot of the proprietary software seen in a corporate environment. The key is to forego upgrading until such things have been fully tested and found to be working properly and until your IT team and/or HelpDesk has the knowledge to deal with any network or system related issues that arise. A lot of companies are waiting until Vista SP1 at least to switch from XP, and I don't blame them. For personal use however it is a great OS with enhanced security that can easily be made to work in most cases with a little bit of effort.

The problems that existed with the release of ME and XP were both far greater than what is being seen with Vista. I used to get a BSOD every other day on ME and went back to Windows 98 after a few weeks, though I haven't seen a single BSOD with Vista yet. I waited until just before SP2 was announced to upgrade to XP due to all of the issues that existed with it including many security vulnerabilities and hardware issues early on.

One of the things that agitates me is that a lot of people complain about system resource usage from options that do not need to be enabled on Vista. I remember the increase in system resource usage for XP over 2000 was far more substantial considering the hardware available at the time compared to what is available to run Vista now. You can buy 4 gigs of RAM for $200 now and 256 megs was the norm on new systems when XP was released compared to 2 gigs now.

BeaverC32

I've had Vista Ultimate for about 6 months now and love it. The built-in apps for multimedia, pictures, sound, etc are all excellent (love the DVDMaker). BitLocker is a feature I played around with, but don't actually use (but see the potential for laptops used for business).

DreamScene is a nice little feature, and I love the look of Aero on my 24" widescreen LCD, plus system performance is excellent even with all features turned on. The graphical enhancements are just one of the things I love about Vista, though. For the non-technical users, network setup is now just about as easy as possible (minus a few quirks).

I got the MCTS: Vista Config cert out of sheer curiousity, and thought it would be a good way to learn the new OS. In the process, I learned to really appreciate some of the changes in Vista.

I had a few issues with some of my favorite apps (such as Nero), but these were all fixed within a month of having Vista. Also, most people complain about UAC -- I'm not one of them. Although it was a bit annoying at first, it's really not that cumbersome and it does serve it's purpose.

garv221

I don't really care for it but at the home level I'm sure it can be cool. I would not like to see a large infrastructure with all Vista, that scares the S#%t out of me.

What is the true benefit of Vista in a corp environment? Shadow copy is irrelevant as users store remotely, colorful desktops are meaningless, shortcuts are pointless, desktop clock = worthless and chances for compatibility issues and problems greatly increase over XP. People say it runs great with new hardware and more memory, with that being said wouldn't XP just fly on a Vista designed system then?

From an IT department and management standpoint, all users need is a compatible OS to corporate software that has the absolute least over head, downtime and is cost effective. The less amount of time help desk spends troubleshooting, the more money saved. It just seems pointless to remove an OS(XP) which basically runs flawless and implement Vista which literally severely increases the cost of ownership and boosts

I will catch Vista in the next two or three life cycles.

dynamik

garv221 wrote:

What is the true benefit of Vista in a corp environment?

Do you use group policy at all? They've added hundreds more options, some of which seem to be quite useful. Also, there is no single feature that stands out as a reason to upgrade. The search has been greatly improved and Vista and Office 2007 really mesh well. There are also little features that come in handy that you sort of just stumble across, such as fast user switching with domain accounts.

I wasn't trying to bash Vista earlier, I just wanted to make a point that there are still little quirks, so be sure to test thoroughly with various hardware and software configurations. I actually like it overall.

networker050184

From an IT department and management standpoint, all users need is a compatible OS to corporate software that has the absolute least over head, downtime and is cost effective.

I think a big one here you missed is user friendly. I agree with the rest of your post. No point in all the flashy stuff in a work enviroment. Once all the user start to use Vista in a home enviroment it will be what they are used to and there for will be more productive on it at work when they know their way around.

garv221

dynamik wrote:

garv221 wrote:

What is the true benefit of Vista in a corp environment?

Do you use group policy at all? They've added hundreds more options, some of which seem to be quite useful. Also, there is no single feature that stands out as a reason to upgrade.

Absolutely, I take full advantage of GP. I do look forward to the power options and WPA2 support. However I feel the trade off at this current time is not worthwhile, I'm sure down the road it is possible. I am looking forward to more GP for everything. We will see what happens when Server 08 is released.

dynamik wrote:

There are also little features that come in handy that you sort of just stumble across, such as fast user switching with domain accounts.

That is cool and as an admin very nice but not a feature benefiting at the user level.

networker050184 wrote:

I think a big one here you missed is user friendly. I agree with the rest of your post. No point in all the flashy stuff in a work enviroment. Once all the user start to use Vista in a home enviroment it will be what they are used to and there for will be more productive on it at work when they know their way around.

Yes. Vista isn't user friendly and I don't want to be in a work environment with users who are now learning Vista for the first time.

It will take time, I'm guessing a little longer than XP did.

Schluep

Another major benefit in a corporate environment once the compatability issues are resolved is that it will be much harder for the users to break things since they don't run as admins. Even changing their display settings prompts them with a security warning.

Another benefit for home use I forgot to mention are the parental controls.

RussS

Schluep wrote:

Another major benefit in a corporate environment once the compatability issues are resolved is that it will be much harder for the users to break things since they don't run as admins. Even changing their display settings prompts them with a security warning.

Another benefit for home use I forgot to mention are the parental controls.

That is the only redeeming features that I can see

I have tried to be impartial and have really looked hard at Vista - what it does and how it does things and my observations are....

Needs dual core processor and minimum 1GB with preferably 2GB RAM to run reasonably smoothly.
Great for new users - should see a lot less virus and spyware activity.
Could be good for corporate use as above, however it is very resource hungry and slow for power users.

It is NOT designed for me

famosbrown

Schluep wrote:

Another major benefit in a corporate environment once the compatability issues are resolved is that it will be much harder for the users to break things since they don't run as admins. Even changing their display settings prompts them with a security warning.

Another benefit for home use I forgot to mention are the parental controls.

Users shouldn't be running as admins in XP within a corporate environment anyway.

So far I like Vista and after installing SP1 beta, performance has been a lot better. We have a few on our network (Sys Admin's only) running Vista and it runs with some flaws. Can't install Exchange System Manager on Vista, can't run HP IP Console on Vista, etc. Still some compatibility issues, but seems alright. For home use, I just like the bubblish of it